Read Next

George Soros pledged that he would renew his fight against the ideology of nationalism, admitting at the same time that the experiment of the European Union is near breaking down. Reported on January 15th by Breitbart News, the billionaire currency speculator was quoted by the Financial Times as saying:

Mr. Soros is one of the major players in the world in terms of advancing the concept of globalization. In so doing, he has managed to help partially demonize the idea of national sovereignty, and this effort has met with quite a bit of success in many ways. So for him, the idea that the nation-state would be the primary way of governance, rather than a “global community”, is repugnant enough that the 87-year-old put US $18 billion of his own wealth into the Open Society Foundations to further the crusade he thinks is so important.

Soros is often held to account as an “evil man” and there are a number of conspiracy theories about his group’s interference in traditional social and national causes. Not all of these conspiracies are true, but not all of them aren’t. Having been witness to Open Society-spawned interference in the matter of adolescent drug treatment programs, it is easy to see both how subtle and how powerful his group’s influence can be.

But, lest we at The Duran be considered simply another room in the echo chamber that demonizes Mr. Soros, let’s try to examine what the actual issues are with him. Why is an 87-year-old man from Hungary considered so dangerous that he is not allowed in Russia, and is hated by his own countrymen, and feared by so many people around the world? There must be some basis. We start to explore that now.

George Soros is one of a select number of individuals who epitomize the character of radical secular humanism. He is successful, extremely wealthy and financially astute, with the ability to make money from any and every turn of financial, social and political events. He is, to quote C.S. Lewis, “dreadfully practical.” To be dreadfully practical does not sound very positive. And in his case, this is true. His Open Society Foundation promotes causes that on the surface often look to be quite compassionate and kind. But in reality, these policy directions promote decay and death. The reason for this is simply because they are based in the theological framework of “secular humanism.”

Note that we used the word theological. This is absolutely the case, and it is well insulated because most secular Western media outlets will not dare to report “theology in action” as the source of a variety of policies and events that shape the world around us. Theology is of course, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience primarily. But it centers around some ultimate source, or Source, if you will. Every philosophy of life has a theological undercurrent to explain the “why” of why we subscribe to the teachings in question. The “religion” of secular humanism has its own pseudo-theology. Understanding its basis helps us decrypt the dangers of modern-day progressivism.

Leo Tolstoy, one of the lead voices for secular humanism

Secular humanism got much of its force from the writings of none other than Leo Tolstoy. The history of this is interesting but a bit lengthy for the scope of this piece. However, for Tolstoy, the underlying philosophy of life was rooted in the teachings of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. However, Tolstoy was stumped by the matter of Jesus Christ’s personal divinity as the Son of God, something which the novelist was never able to accept. However, Tolstoy got to a place where he was able to understand the Sermon as a series of principles, that if practiced, would bring Utopia on earth. But he could not accept the teaching in context with the fact that this is a way of life rooted in God. Tolstoy wrote this about his understanding of the Sermon on the Mount:

It may be affirmed that the constant fulfilment of this rule is difficult, and that not every man will find his happiness in obeying it. It may be said that it is foolish; that, as unbelievers pretend, Jesus was a visionary, an idealist, whose impracticable rules were only followed because of the stupidity of his disciples. But it is impossible not to admit that Jesus did say very clearly and definitely that which he intended to say: namely, that men should not resist evil; and that therefore he who accepts his teaching cannot resist.

Here, of course was the best thinking that Tolstoy could accomplish, for to him the divinity of Christ was a foolish and mad concept. Nevertheless, the Sermon on the Mount became his philosophical core, and taken apart from the nature of its Author, it looks like a prescription for utopia.

This is why Soros’ Open Society Foundation seems so irresistible to the Western thinker. Everything about its policy points, from drug-use normalization to acceptance of sexual deviancies to the elimination of nationalism, all seems like the practical next steps in “progress” of human society from a rough, primitive, nationalist, traditionalist, restricted worldview, to one that is “enlightened” and “with the times” and “synchronized to the reality of the human spirit.”

If we take the Sermon’s teachings out of context, it is easy to understand much of the base tenets of liberalism, progressivism, and of course the overarching philosophy of secular humanism itself. Tolstoy also cherry picked other instructions attributed to Christ’s teaching, but he did so inaccurately and without discernment, and much of those principles are expressed in various ways throughout humanist circles.

If we honestly examine the viewpoints of many modern religious groups, we are easily able to find many who consider themselves Christian groups. Some are churches and religious denominations and some are social and activist agencies that are not churches. But all of them share a similar conviction that doing the actions of compassion and ‘fairness’ is all that is needed to be Christian, and in this context, Christ himself is the Chief Philosopher and Teacher of this way of life.

Many noble programs and agencies have indeed come to existence from people following essential Christian teachings on how to live and interact with others. But in recent decades we have begun to witness the effect of removing the Divine Nature from the center of why we do what we do. Rather than feeling like we serve God by doing what we do, we think of serving “the greater good” and these are not the same thing. The “greater good” is a highly malleable concept. The God of our Scriptures and ancient Christian institutions, on which most of Europe was based, is NOT malleable. What do many of us prefer? Easy.

The United States of America used to hold the line for traditional values, but no longer

During the Cold War, the common byline taught to children in the United States was “we are free to worship God as we wish… in the Soviet Union, they are arrested and killed for praying, and they are not allowed to choose their own way in life.”

There was a lot of truth to this statement, though of course, since a lot of it was necessary propaganda, some of it was not really so. However, it was enough to keep American values quite traditionally-based through a significant period of its history. We were taught to VALUE the fact we could pray to God and go to Church, and that we could be protected against attacks from people that did not like our beliefs.

But now, look how things have changed in the United States!

During the last years of Obama’s term, the definition of “Christian” became associated with “hater”, “bigot”, “homophobe”, and many other very derogatory terms. We became cowed in the workplace, in many places unable to talk about our faith with one another, lest we “offend” someone there. We saw businesses illegally persecuted by government agencies because the owners tried to follow their religious beliefs. And in an amazing sell-out, we even saw clergy – some of them Orthodox (very traditional) Christian clergy take the side of the anti-Christian force in the name of “fairness and tolerance.” Some other clergy are now made afraid to speak the truth of God because they might be run out of their own parishes.

What is more significant than even this is a loss of understanding of what Christian faith actually is. In 2006, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama spoke about the charge laid against him by opponent Alan Keyes that he was not a Christian. Included in this speech was this thought:

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

So, look at this, and look at Tolstoy’s comments above. Notice the similarity? Here, Obama is talking about Christian faith as the agent of social change, and not about the matter of the divinity of Christ himself, or of living according to God’s commandment. Yet, this speech no doubt served as a salve to reassure many people that, yes, Obama is a Christian.

Patriarch Kirill and Archbishop Ieronymos with Russian President Vladimir Putin

Modern day Russia is one of the last bastions of traditional values

How we believe shapes how we be, as well as how we act. This is not a tenuous argument. Now, the view held by traditional Christians, mainly Eastern Orthodox, follows lines that today are demonized as “nationalism” but which have very ancient roots. Israel was a nation that was bound by a covenant, an agreement, with a Divine Power. Even when Israel got a king, in the fashion of other nations, the first two kings were deliberately selected by Divine Providence, through the mouth of a prophet. Both kings went wrong in ways. Such is the fate of humans who mess things up. But this also teaches something. Monarchy and nationalism are not guarantees of Utopia; the fact is, they were never meant to be. Yet, a nation that lives in obedience to the Divine Authority it claims to be under, does quite well.

The Western press likes to call Putin a closet Communist. But it also likes to vilify him as candidate for Tsar. He is neither. But that is the nature of the Western press – to take whatever point best suits the purpose, for the accomplishment of the “greater good” of taking down a nation that has increasingly been dedicating itself to the ancient principle that a nation that trusts God and serves him is also saved by him. The main thing that energized the secular press against President Putin was his open declaration of his Christian faith, and his fearless and honest assessment of the secular institutions of modern Europe:

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.

We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilization.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote pedophilia.

People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation.

And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world.

Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration.

Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity.

This is something that is an utter affront to secular humanists, hence to people like George Soros and those who believe as he does, as Tolstoy did, and as Obama does. The philosophy of Utopia is not compatible with ancient tradition. And history has so far shown us that it is the ancient traditions that endure, and the old truths never fail.

This is our fight, and this is why nationalism is increasingly vilified. Nationalism, particularly that of monarchy in the Christian tradition, is inextricably tied to Something, to Someone we cannot see, taste, touch…